The group of people writing on behalf of genetic engineering and the biochemistry of pesticides and Monsanto are far, far superior to the anti-GM and natural activists when it comes to scientific debate.
Most of the anti-GM "studies" and other contribution doesn't even come from scientists. Some of the most heavily cited information comes Jeffrey Smith, a consumer advocate with no scientific background whatsoever. The few scientists involved in anti-GM activity often are not molecular biologists or geneticists, but some marginally related field. Their main strategy is to use emotion and populism and poorly conducted politically motivated research to rally the masses. Molecular biology and genetics and immunology takes years to understand. People like Jeffrey Smith, with some effort, take advantage of the public's scientific ignorance, and they make the difficult to understand science sound terrifying to the public.
The worst Monsanto and EPA/FDA studies I have seen are still far better and more unbiased safety assessments than the best alternative research so far. Unfortunately the general public, and especially the most passionate alternative medicine advocates, can't tell the difference. Seralini's studies, the ones seen most frequently cited by anti-GMO activists, are a laughable embarrassment to the scientific method. Unfortunately many people are trusting this fraudulent research like the word of God.
Monsanto would be stupid to not hire PR help. They are in the difficult position of explaining complicated, difficult to understand science to an extremely uninformed populace, much of whom are openly hostile to corporations.